The ugly truth is that a lot of people don't try Harry Potter because it's a 'children's' book.

I started reading Harry Potter when I was 12 (around a year after the first book was released). Even at that age, I had a couple of classmates who disparage it because of the hype without even trying to read the book first. Almost 30 now and I still enjoy Harry Potter even now (well, the first four books, anyway).

I get picked on occasionally (usually by strangers) for what I choose to read. When I first read Twilight (hardback borrowed from my grandmother before I had my nook), I had some random old guy (probably 50s or 60s) walk up to me in the mall and start talking about how bad the Twilight books are. When he finally stopped for a breath, I asked him if he had personally read the books. "No, why would I read that garbage." "Well, if you haven't read it, how do you know it's garbage?" "Everyone says it is..." Yeah, that conversation was over fairly quickly after I pointed out how idiotic that train of thought was. I have a personal rule that I cannot bad-mouth a book without having read it myself. However, even books that I bad-mouth because I don't like them usually get a disclaimer of "just because they're not for me, doesn't mean they aren't for you."

Just the other day some lady around my age (late 20s to early 30s) asked me what I was reading on my nook and how I liked my nook. First, I told her I loved my nook and then showed her some of the nifty little features like the glow function. Then I told her I was actually reading all of the old Goosebumps series since I hadn't read them since I was in grade school and I knew I hadn't read all of them. "YOU'RE READING CHILDREN'S BOOKS?!" I had no idea it was a crime to read the Goosebumps series as an adult... o_O

I get picked on occasionally (usually by strangers) for what I choose to read. When I first read Twilight (hardback borrowed from my grandmother before I had my nook), I had some random old guy (probably 50s or 60s) walk up to me in the mall and start talking about how bad the Twilight books are. When he finally stopped for a breath, I asked him if he had personally read the books. "No, why would I read that garbage." "Well, if you haven't read it, how do you know it's garbage?" "Everyone says it is..." Yeah, that conversation was over fairly quickly after I pointed out how idiotic that train of thought was. I have a personal rule that I cannot bad-mouth a book without having read it myself. However, even books that I bad-mouth because I don't like them usually get a disclaimer of "just because they're not for me, doesn't mean they aren't for you."

One thing I can say for myself is that I usually never trash talk anything if I haven't experienced it for myself. Far too many people confuse ''that's crap'' with ''it's just not something I'm into''. I've never read Twilight, I don't know if it's bad because I haven't read it, nor is it in my taste to do so. Even if I read it and hated it I certainly wouldn't express my unsolicited negative opinion to a stranger.

I don't find it necessary to trash people who privilege what gets called literature and/or literary fiction. I'd be amazed if the author of Twilight claimed to hate Jane Austen.

There has to be a better way to appear tolerant than to be intolerant of what one thinks intolerant people read.

The person who goes out of their way to berate your interest in paranormal romance wants you to know their taste is better than yours. Having to do that isn't the sign of a great self-image. Most people I know who hate Twilight would leave you alone. I think it's a kind of sin to insult someone because they're enthusiastic about a book.

Neither is it fair to ascribe a lack of humility and courtesy to people who dislike paranormal romances. We tend to see only the prejudices that we ourselves experience, but rest assured: the person who loves what we hate and vice versa catches heat over their taste, too.

I would never knock the Twilight books. I think they got a huge number of teens into reading including my daughter. Now reading them at what ever age again I have no problem. But when you identify to such an extent with a teenage character you act like a teen at a Beaber concert I will keep my back to the wall and back away from you very fast. It is creepy. I have had friends on facebook my age, 40 something drooling and carrying on like love struck 13 year olds over edward. It just creeps me, I del them super fast.

I have had friends on facebook my age, 40 something drooling and carrying on like love struck 13 year olds over edward.

Well, considering sparkly Eddie is over 100 years old, he is the best example of Peter Pan syndrome since old Pete himself. And that particular breed of male does seem to attract the ladies like honey attract flies.

Twilight is sure to provide ample fodder for future social historians: a century old introvert, constantly reliving his teen years, romancing a suicidal, clinically depressed teenager?
I can just see the class discussions:
"What does that say about the times and the male half of the species that an entire demographic cohort considered that a romantic fantasy?"

The thing I find worse than people who are snobby about what somebody is reading are those authors who try to deny their book is in a particular genre as they are snobby about that, it is something that you see particularly often when it comes to books that are clearly scifi and then an author or reviewer tries to use some convoluted argument for why it is something else.

The thing I find worse than people who are snobby about what somebody is reading are those authors who try to deny their book is in a particular genre as they are snobby about that, it is something that you see particularly often when it comes to books that are clearly scifi and then an author or reviewer tries to use some convoluted argument for why it is something else.

Often, it isn't a question of the writer's being snobbish about their own book. It's a question of their not wanting the book's readership and ad campaign to be marginalized, particularly if they intended the book for a larger audience from the beginning -- one which includes science fiction readers without being confined to them exclusively.

Then, too, if a book is "clearly science fiction" (as you put it) but the writer was concerned with focusing on some aspect of present society and culture or exploring the ramifications of preexisting ones, I don't blame them at all for wanting to talk about that and nothing else. SF lends itself particularly well to satire, parable and cultural criticism. And if a book takes a meta approach to genre, I don't blame an author for wanting to clarify they take up the lens of SF here and the western or detective novel there, but the book itself is meant to explore something larger. Seen without prejudice, genre is merely a limitation of subject, theme, unities, conventions and/or kinds of characters. Saying that something you've written doesn't follow the circumscriptions of a given genre is hardly a condemnation of the genre itself.

Every work of fiction involves an acceptance of certain limitations and a rejection of others.

What would you call Calvino's Cosmicomics and T Zero? For all I know, he called the books SF even when his publishers did not. But if he called them something else, I can see the justification for that as well.

When Joss Whedon was asked whether he intended Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be for a larger audience or a specialized one, he said it was "made for the zeitgeist" from inception. Given the scope of cultural references in that show, its paradigmatic setup of young adulthood as existing in a state of enforced purgatory, and its satire of the undermining of personal identity in mass culture, I can see why he didn't think of the show or its audience as confined to the vampire genre he was exploring even as he respected and enjoyed that genre himself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowl

The thing I find worse than people who are snobby about what somebody is reading are those authors who try to deny their book is in a particular genre as they are snobby about that, it is something that you see particularly often when it comes to books that are clearly scifi and then an author or reviewer tries to use some convoluted argument for why it is something else.

intended Buffy the Vampire Slayer to be for a larger audience or a specialized one, he said it was "made for the zeitgeist" from inception. Given the scope of cultural references in that show, its paradigmatic setup of young adulthood as existing in a state of enforced purgatory, and its satire of the undermining of personal identity in mass culture, I can see why he didn't think of the show or its audience as confined to the vampire genre he was exploring even as he respected and enjoyed that genre himself.

He also said "I'd rather make a show 100 people need to see, than a show that 1000 people want to see". So the focus was very narrow.

He also said "I'd rather make a show 100 people need to see, than a show that 1000 people want to see". So the focus was very narrow.

His focus wasn't narrow at all when you understand that the point is want vs. need, not 100 vs. 1,000. The idea was that he made the show for however many people needed to see it, which turned out to be four to six million regular viewers.

His focus wasn't narrow at all when you understand that the point is want vs. need, not 100 vs. 1,000. The idea was that he made the show for however many people needed to see it, which turned out to be four to six million regular viewers.

He just wanted to *really* draw people in, to get them so involved with the characters you *needed* to know what comes next. Kinda like the way LOST drew it its audience.